It is quite long, not new but does anybody understand the comments from the audience during Robert Marks' talk on information, genetic algortims, Avida and weasel?

I suspect it is another manifestation of Bob Marks' juvenile sense of humor. He is not giving this lecture to a live audience, so he's probably filling in what he imagines is going through the minds of his target audience. If so, he obviously doesn't think much of the intellectual capabilities of his audience, or maybe those are the thoughts that go through his mind. It kind of follows along the lines of those disturbing drawings of "people" that he populates his slides with. I have a very hard time looking at those. The artwork is so starkly ugly, they remind me of adolescent male pen-and-ink doodling. And then he puts the same cartoon on several successive slides, like he's proud to show them off. They make me wince, and want to look away.

--------------The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

Is There Any Conflict Between Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

Sewell's arguments have been shredded timeandagain before before. However, Lloyd dared to publish his work in The Mathematical Intelligencer (Volume 34, Number 1 (2012), 29-33) thus in the very same journal Sewell sneaked the first version of his article in and the editors refused to publish Sewell's reponse.

On a side note: Is it really a good idea to attack a journal run by the same publisher who is currently re-reviewing Biological Information: New Perspectives in which Sewell is repeating his claims.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Jerry Coyne, in his polemic Why Evolution is True, scoffs at those 91 percent who find his analysis unconvincing. He writes, "True, breeders haven't turned a cat into a dog, and laboratory studies haven't turned a bacterium into an amoeba ... but it is foolish to think that these are serious objections to natural selection."

Of course these are, in fact, serious objections; Dr. Coyne doesn't get to choose what data is and isn't objectionable to others. Major speciation via undirected processes is the crux of the Darwinian narrative. If it can't be replicated, this objection is an example of what logicians call a "defeater." If you, an intelligent actor using skill, can't breed a cat into a different genera [sic], then presumably and reasonably nature can't do this either.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

With the appearance of Homo erectus, though, many traits changed all at once. Below the neck, these hominins were virtually indistinguishable from a modern human. Their legs, lumbar spine, arms, shoulder girdle, pelvis and hips, rib cage and feet now were those of a long-distance runner with an efficient well-balanced gait

How efficient? And what the hell is a "well-balanced gait"? The features that would have made H. erectus good endurance runners did not appear all at once. We see some of these features in earlier hominins such as H.habilis. But they first appear as a total package in H. erectus.

With the appearance of Homo erectus, though, many traits changed all at once. Below the neck, these hominins were virtually indistinguishable from a modern human. Their legs, lumbar spine, arms, shoulder girdle, pelvis and hips, rib cage and feet now were those of a long-distance runner with an efficient well-balanced gait

How efficient? And what the hell is a "well-balanced gait"? The features that would have made H. erectus good endurance runners did not appear all at once. We see some of these features in earlier hominins such as H.habilis. But they first appear as a total package in H. erectus.

Yes, and what the hell does

Quote

Faith the Dog is not evidence for the ability to evolve bipedalism, she is evidence for achievement in the face of adversity.

have to do with anything?

Quote

Australopithecine fossils were ape-like in posture and gait. Their ribcage, hips, legs, spine, and feet were closer to chimp than human. While these hominins may have spent some time on the ground, they were not built for speed or running.

So Australopithicines contain some traits linking them to the common ancestor of chimps and humans, and some traits linking it to later Homo? This is called, unless I am mistaken, a transitional fossil.

Luskin has been flogging the same two articles Gauger cited for years, guess he was indisposed and let Ann have a chance to misunderstand them...

--------------Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

Really. You will have to admit that it is flanked by gaps on both sides. ;)

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Jerry Coyne, in his polemic Why Evolution is True, scoffs at those 91 percent who find his analysis unconvincing. He writes, "True, breeders haven't turned a cat into a dog, and laboratory studies haven't turned a bacterium into an amoeba ... but it is foolish to think that these are serious objections to natural selection."

Of course these are, in fact, serious objections; Dr. Coyne doesn't get to choose what data is and isn't objectionable to others. Major speciation via undirected processes is the crux of the Darwinian narrative. If it can't be replicated, this objection is an example of what logicians call a "defeater." If you, an intelligent actor using skill, can't breed a cat into a different genera [sic], then presumably and reasonably nature can't do this either.

Jerry Coyne, in his polemic Why Evolution is True, scoffs at those 91 percent who find his analysis unconvincing. He writes, "True, breeders haven't turned a cat into a dog, and laboratory studies haven't turned a bacterium into an amoeba ... but it is foolish to think that these are serious objections to natural selection."

Of course these are, in fact, serious objections; Dr. Coyne doesn't get to choose what data is and isn't objectionable to others. Major speciation via undirected processes is the crux of the Darwinian narrative. If it can't be replicated, this objection is an example of what logicians call a "defeater." If you, an intelligent actor using skill, can't breed a cat into a different genera [sic], then presumably and reasonably nature can't do this either.

Why not go the whole hog and demand a crocoduck?

And if a ducodile is discovered, evolution (which predikts crocoduck) is teh disproved!

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

--------------The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

Wasn't Mario their IT guy for a while? Also haven't heard from Anika "the tank" Smith for a while. I guess they finally found real jobs. Too bad about Luskin.

Hannah Maxson, Mark Hausam... man, those were the days, hey?

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad